Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

105 results for “reassessment”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,359 Delhi1,148 Chennai641 Bangalore510 Ahmedabad347 Jaipur338 Kolkata255 Hyderabad232 Chandigarh185 Pune179 Indore132 Raipur125 Cochin105 Rajkot81 Visakhapatnam77 Surat66 Guwahati62 Cuttack59 Lucknow59 Amritsar57 Patna42 Nagpur41 Ranchi39 Karnataka37 Jodhpur29 Agra25 Telangana21 SC18 Dehradun17 Allahabad17 Jabalpur7 Calcutta6 Kerala5 Rajasthan4 Varanasi4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Gauhati2 Panaji2 Himachal Pradesh2 Punjab & Haryana2 Uttarakhand1 Orissa1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 14A129 Section 143(3)79 Section 14867 Section 14763 Addition to Income61 Reassessment42 Exemption42 Section 10B41 Section 10A40 Section 12A

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

reassessment completed, the exemption claimed u/s 10B / 10A of the I.T.Act was disallowed and also interest expenditure for the reason

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

37

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the I.T.Act vide order dated 04.03.2013 by accepting the claim of exemption

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the I.T.Act vide order dated 04.03.2013 by accepting the claim of exemption

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

exemption u/s. 11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 507/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

exemption u/s. 11 was allowable to the assessee. The contributions received towards “Building Fund” amounting to Rs.9,94,82,230/- was from members and list of the same was given to the Assessing Officer during reassessment

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 327/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

exemption u/s. 11 was allowable to the assessee. The contributions received towards “Building Fund” amounting to Rs.9,94,82,230/- was from members and list of the same was given to the Assessing Officer during reassessment

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)Section 2(24)(ii)

exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessment ITA No.20/Coch/2017. 5 M/s.The Choice Foundation. was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 and reassessment

DCIT,, ERNAKULAM vs. JOJO FROZEN FOODS P.LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 545/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment is attempted after the period of four years, necessarily, the question of absence of full and true disclosure by the assessee of material facts becomes relevant.” It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that “If essential and basic documents which are to be necessarily examined before grant of exemption

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years where the AO has reason to believe income having escaped assessment. The same, again, a part of well-settled law, is clarified to be in respect of only primary facts [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)]. This

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years where the AO has reason to believe income having escaped assessment. The same, again, a part of well-settled law, is clarified to be in respect of only primary facts [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)]. This

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years